Motor neurons are dispensable for the assembly of a sensorimotor circuit for gaze stabilization

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study has as its goal to determine how the structure and function of the circuit that stabilizes gaze in the larval zebrafish depends on the presence of the output cells, the motor neurons. A major model of neural circuit development posits that the wiring of neurons is instructed by their postsynaptic cells, transmitting signals retrogradely on which cells to contact and, by extension, where to project their axons. Goldblatt et al. remove the motor neurons from the circuit by generating null mutants for the phox2a gene. The study then shows that, in this mutant that lacks the isl1-labelled extraocular motor neurons, the central projection neurons have 1) largely normal responses to vestibular input; 2) normal gross morphology; 3) minimally changed transcriptional profiles. From this, the authors conclude that the wiring of the circuit is not instructed by the output neurons, refuting the major model.

Strengths:

I found the manuscript to be exceptionally well-written and presented, with clear and concise writing and effective figures that highlight key concepts. The topic of neural circuit wiring is central to neuroscience, and the paper's findings will interest researchers across the field, and especially those focused on motor systems.

The experiments conducted are clever and of a very high standard, and I liked the systematic progression of methods to assess the different potential effects of removing phox2a on circuit structure and function. Analyses (including statistics) are comprehensive and appropriate and show the authors are meticulous and balanced in most of the conclusions that they draw. Overall, the findings are interesting, and with a few tweaks, should leave little doubt about the paper's main conclusions.

Weaknesses:

The main point is the incomplete characterisation of the effects of removing phox2a on the extra-ocular motor neurons. Are these cells no longer there, or are they there but no longer labelled by isl1:GFP? If they are indeed removed, might they have developed early on, and subsequently lost? These questions matter as the central focus of the manuscript is whether the presence of these cells influences the connectivity and function of their presynaptic projection neurons. Therefore, for the main conclusions to be fully supported by the data, the authors would need to test whether 1) the motor neurons that otherwise would have been labelled by the isl1:GFP line are physically no longer there; 2) that this removal (if, indeed, it is that) is developmental. If these experiments are not feasible, then the text should be adjusted to take this into account. A further point to address is the context of the manipulation. If the phox2a removal does indeed take out the extra-ocular motor neurons, what percentage of postsynaptic neurons to the projection neurons are still present? In other words, how does the postsynaptic nMLF output relate to the motor neurons? If, for instance, the nMLF (which, as the authors state, are likely still innervated by the projection neurons) are the main output of the projections neurons, then this would affect the interpretation of the results.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study was designed to test the hypothesis that motor neurons play a causal role in circuit assembly of the vestibulo-ocular reflex circuit, which is based on the retrograde model proposed by Hans Straka. This circuit consists of peripheral sensory neurons, central projection neurons, and motor neurons. The authors hypothesize that loss of extraocular motor neurons, through CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis of the phox2a gene, will disrupt sensory selectivity in presynaptic projection neurons if the retrograde model is correct.

Account of the major strengths and weaknesses of the methods and results:

The work presented is impressive in both breadth and depth, including the experimental paradigms. Overall, the main results were that the loss of function paradigm to eliminate extraocular motor neurons did not 1) alter the normal functional connections between peripheral sensory neurons and central projection neurons, 2) affect the position of central projection neurons in the sensorimotor circuit, or 3) significantly alter the transcriptional profiles of central projection neurons. Together, these results strongly indicate that retrograde signals from motor neurons are not required for the development of the sensorimotor architecture of the vestibulo-ocular circuit.

Appraisal of whether the authors achieved their aims, and whether the results support their conclusions:

The results of this study showed that extraocular motor neurons were not required for central projection neuron specification in the vestibulo-ocular circuit, which countered the prevailing retrograde hypothesis proposed for circuit assembly. A concern is that the results presented may be limited to this specific circuit and may not be generalizable to other circuit assemblies, even to other sensorimotor circuits.

Discussion of the likely impact of the work on the field, and the utility of the methods and data to the community:

As mentioned above, this study sheds valuable new insights into the developmental organization of the vestibulo-ocular circuit. However, different circuits likely utilize various mechanisms, extrinsic or intrinsic (or both), to establish proper functional connectivity. So, the results shown here, although begin to explain the developmental organization of the vestibulo-ocular circuit, are not likely to be generalizable to other circuits; though this remains to be seen. At a minimum, this study provides a starting point for the examination of patterning of connections in this and other sensorimotor circuits.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript by Goldblatt et al. the authors study the development of a well-known sensorimotor system, the vestibulo-ocular reflex circuit, using Danio rerio as a model. The authors address whether motor neurons within this circuit are required to determine the identity, upstream connectivity and function of their presynaptic partners, central projection neurons. They approach this by generating a CRISPR-mediated knockout line for the transcription factor phox2a, which specifies the fate of extraocular muscle motor neurons. After showing that phox2a knockout ablates these motor neurons, the authors show that functionally, morphologically, and transcriptionally, projection neurons develop relatively normally.

Overall, the authors present a convincing argument for the dispensability of motor neurons in the wiring of this circuit, although their claims about the generalizability of their findings to other sensorimotor circuits should be tempered. The study is comprehensive and employs multiple methods to examine the function, connectivity and identity of projection neurons.

Specific comments:

(1) In the introduction the authors set up the controversy on whether or not motor neurons play an instructive role in determining "pre-motor fate". This statement is somewhat generic and a bit misleading as it is generally accepted that many aspects of interneuron identity are motor neuron-independent. The authors might want to expand on these studies and better define what they mean by "fate", as it is not clear whether the studies they are citing in support of this hypothesis actually make that claim.

(2) Although it appears unchanged from their images, the authors do not explicitly quantitate the number of total projection neurons in phox2a knockouts.

(3) For figures 2C and 3C, please report the proportion of neurons in each animal, either showing individual data points here or in a separate supplementary figure; and please perform and report the results of an appropriate statistical test.

(4) In the topographical mapping of calcium responses (figures 2D, E and 3D), the authors say they see no differences but this is hard to appreciate based on the 3D plotting of the data. Quantitating the strength of the responses across the 3-axes shown individually and including statistical analyses would help make this point, especially since the plots look somewhat qualitatively different.

(5) The transcriptional analysis is very interesting, however, it is not clear why it was performed at 72 hpf, while functional experiments were performed at 5 days. Is it possible that early aspects of projection neuron identity are preserved, while motor neuron-dependent changes occur later? The authors should better justify and discuss their choice of timepoint. The inclusion of heterozygotes as controls is problematic, given that the authors show there are notable differences between phox2a+/+ and phox2a+/- animals; pooling these two genotypes could potentially flatten differences between controls and phox2a-/-.

(6) Projection neurons appear to be topographically organized and this organization is maintained in the absence of motor neurons. Are there specific genes that delineate ventral and dorsal projection neurons? If so, the authors should look at those as candidate genes as they might be selectively involved in connectivity. Showing that generic synaptic markers (Figure 4E) are maintained in the entire population is not convincing evidence that these neurons would choose the correct synaptic partners.